The common Internet myth about Apple using Exynos based SoC. No Smasung hasn't make the design ever since they used Mali as their Exynos GPU, and Samsung's A15 wont even have a product shipping it this year.Reply

If the A6 really uses an A15, then that's amazing. By comparison, Nvidia and TI both suck big time. Before, Nvidia had a worse GPU than Apple, but higher clocked quad core CPU. Now though, The Tegra line is worse than Apple in everything. And don't get me started on TI. What a complete joke. The best they have is still the OMAP 4470. Pathetic.

Also, while I agree with the A15 conclusion, but it's still a guess until confirmed. The speed increase alone shouldn't be anything to go on. They could have done that with a 1.6Ghz pair of A9s (like T3). which at 32nm, should be possible.

It's a good time to be an Apple user. As an Android user myself, I only have A9's (or krait) as an option :(Reply

You do realize that Krait is (almost) an A15. In fact it is better than A15's in certain areas (like the fact that it has a 128-bit FPU, instead of 64-bit). Performance wise they will be nearly identical at the same speeds.Reply

Are you kidding? MSM8960 (Dual-core Krait @ 1.5GHz) is probably the single most common SoC on the market today. A partial list of phones using it:HTC One S (all) and Droid Incredible 4G LTEHTC One XL/LTE One X/Evo 4G LTELTE Galaxy S 3Nokia Lumia 820 and 920Motorola Droid RAZR HD and Atrix HDSony Xperia VZTE V96Reply

You might be right, they could just be running higher clocked dual A9s.

As for the A15s in Android devices, those should be releasing imminently. That said, dual 1.5GHz Krait cores are plenty of power. So much so, I still haven't bothered flashing my SGSIII with CM or some other stock android build. Ya, TouchWiz (or whatever they are calling it now) is ugly, but I'm mostly holding out for stable CM10/JB.

In the end, I wouldn't be totally surprised if Apple was the first to release A15s though. They are willing to pay for it. They've been paying for their MASSIVE SoCs for the past few generations now. If you are Nvidia, you need to produce chips that will sell in high volume. Most manufacturers aren't willing to buy a chip 4x the size. Apple on the other hand can design this chip, contract out Samsung, and get the volume they need to make workout on the quarterly spreadsheets.

You forget that Apple are IMMENSELY disciplined in how they reuse chips across all their devices, from iPads to iPod Touch's to Apple TVs. This reuse allows them a whole lot of scope for getting use out of chips that are less than perfect (one of two cores doesn't work, power or frequency targets aren't hit, etc).

Samsung, in THEORY, could do this; but in practice they are as indisciplined as every other CE manufacturer, using a random collection of chips across a constantly mutating product line, with zero thought given to these sorts of holistic issues.

The only comparable company I see is Intel, which likewise designs its product line for maximal value from somewhat defective devices and maximal reuse of IP.Reply

Funny you should say that, because my first thought on Apple's announcement was "huh, that sounds EXACTLY like the OMAP 4470." Think about it: 2x Cortex-A9 at 1.5+ GHz, and an SGX544 MP2 for graphics. That would provide almost exactly twice the current A5's performance in both areas.Reply

Close in CPU performance but suffer in power consumption.Far off in the GPU performance, SGX544 MP2 has about similar per clock performance compared to SGX543MP2.OMAP 4470 runs the GPU core at 300Mhz while A5 runs at 250Mhz, so OMAP 4470 is about 30% faster compared to A5 in iPhone 4s configuration and would not come close to 200% faster in A6.Reply

Anandtech has already reviewed an OMAP 4470 power device, the Archos 101 XS. It has a single SGX544 core.

The SGX544 and SGX543 are basically the same computationally per Hz except for the 544 has DX9 extensions.

Since the Apple A5 has 2 SGX543 cores, that makes the old A5 SoC 2x as powerful as the GPU in the OMAP 4470. Since TI clocks the SGX544MP1 higher than Apple clockes the A5 SGX543MP2, probably on the order of 50% to 70%, they can make up the difference.

With Apple claiming a 2x increase in GPU over the A5 SoC, that pretty much definitively says Apple is not using an OMAP 4470 as that would have to clock the SGX544MP1 to 700-800 MHz to achieve that goal. Highly unlikely.Reply

Yet games still look better on Tegra across the board. I'm more than happy to take performance upgrades but not if I don't see much for it. I'd rather see software that is optimized to take advantage of those technologies. Apple spends nothing on devs. Tegrazone exists to help devs and highlight the money they spend on devs to get better graphics on the Tegra phones. You can have a great chip with tons of performance, but if nobody uses it to enhance my experience what is the point?

If apple isn't handing out money and Android is activating 4-1 vs apple, it's hard to argue that a dev would spend more money on apple's shrinking % of the market share rather than an exploding android market. If I get no help, I go where the biggest pie is. If apple doesn't stop this soon, android will have a ton more devices in the market and devs will always be developing for Apple 2nd (much like they do in games now, apple is always 2nd and the conversion/port, not the platform games are designed for).

Apple is making tons of money. No argument there. But devs have to worry about % of users that can buy their app/game. They don't really care about apple's bottom line, they care about their own.http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57510994-94/googl...The sheer number of potential customers is staggering and continues to grow on android. If apple doesn't start writing checks to devs soon, they will be in a world of dev hurt, as they head to where the masses are sitting (and Nvidia is tossing money at them exacerbating the issue). IF I was writing a game, and Nvidia offered a check and support team help to make their product shine, I'd take the check. It's money you get no matter if you project sells or not to users. It's free dev money. It's the same thing with Nvidia taking money from Nexus 7/surface etc. They don't care if google or microsoft ever make a dime on them. They've already inked their deal and sold the chips. IF they sit on the shelf NV still got the sale already and profits go up for their stock/bottom line. The same is true with devs who get checks to write better code for NV based apps/games easily downloaded via tegrazone. Hurry up google, get me a 10in tablet based on Wayne :)

If I was apple I'd spend $1 billion on say 100x10 million games for devs. It would ensure some top quality games for the next 2 years and create a market that currently doesn't really exist on their platform. I'm talking games like Baldur's Gate enhanced quality (possibly Wild Blood, unreal engine types), $10-20 not .99 cents. It may even help take over consoles for them. Heck just port/update all the great x86 games! Most kids have no idea what planescape torment, wizardy, ultima, baldur's gate, etc even are. The games would be ready by the next rev of phones/tablets most likely and hack off a lot of console sales next year as the new expensive hardware debuts.

The power of cell phones at 1080P is becoming a reality. What do you need a console for if you can get the same performance on a phone via hdmi out to your tv? If I'm tossing up devices at xmas next year, phone vs. new console is a tough argument for parents on a budget. One device to rule them all so to speak. I can reach my kid on the phone/tablet, they can browse the web, play games, use old xbox/ps2/ps3 controllers, do some effective homework etc. A 10in tablet could be output to a larger monitor/keyboard/mouse combo to double as a cheap laptop for the kids (phone can do this too). Develop a website showing parents (via vids?) exactly how to connect it all and viola. Console dead, your phone sells, devs make money on partially already paid for games (nixing NV's advantage currently in dev love affair from years of PC money & continuing with phones/tablets), etc. All good for apple (or whomever does this and fosters it's good health).

Why didn't ouya etc go with apple based products? No money/help from the company. Apple could have paid to keep ouya alive long enough for them to be viable. Apple could fund this game infusion for a Billion a year for the next 5 years and laugh as they kill consoles. They seem to refuse. With 110 Billion in the bank they should spend on long term future projects. We can ditch their expensive phones/tablets easily today (witness Kindfire sales stealing 17% of tablets). Everyone has the same thing today. The second a good 10in competitor comes out, I won't even be able to remember Ipad's name (surface x86? - all my old pc games instantly run on it). I have no reason to be loyal (or even become loyal as I don't own either an android or ios base device) that I can't see will win in the fun dept. I'll head to the where I think the most/best looking fun will be as every device can wait on me in word/email etc. I never plan to dev on a phone or tablet so games will draw me in. I'm not sure I'll ever want to run REAL apps (photoshop, dreamweaver etc etc) on a puny screen. But I'll want to HDMI out to my big screen tv for some quick fun on the road or in the home on the couch :)

LOL@ this:"It's a good time to be an Apple user. As an Android user myself, I only have A9's (or krait) as an option"

So the NV/TI chips suck but you bought one based on some android related chip. I call BS. Is this another logon for you Tony Swash? ;) Itanium is a great tech, but no dev cares. The software & experience we get from the device is the important thing to end users. The chip inside? Only us nerds know ;)Reply

"But devs have to worry about % of users that can buy their app/game. They don't really care about apple's bottom line, they care about their own.http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57510994-94/googl...The sheer number of potential customers is staggering and continues to grow on android. If apple doesn't start writing checks to devs soon, they will be in a world of dev hurt, as they head to where the masses are sitting (and Nvidia is tossing money at them exacerbating the issue)."

So your solution to the (minuscule) developer problem of iOS fragmentation is to switch to the (massive) problem of Android fragmentation?Your solution to developers (supposedly) not making money on iOS is to switch to the Android marketplace where piracy is far more common and customers are willing to spend far less?

A bit long of a comment. I think your intention is good and you got some good points. But sometimes it got convoluted with incorrect facts and personal opinion. I am sure you meant well thought.

For instance...Google shared that in June 2012, they got 400 million Android devices.

Apple shared that they closed out last qtr, ending June 2012 with 400 million iOS devices.

We know Android is growing fast. But looking at those two numbers, it isn't as "staggering" as you thought. One thing I do know...there is much wider difference between the lowest Android devices and the most premium than the same difference on the iOS side. And that does count more substantially when deciding which platform to develop for than the sheer numbers a lone.Reply

TI was also widely said to have the earliest Cortex A15 silicon out. However, the earliest mass produced and shipped standard licensed Cortex A15 based design is the Apple A6. It is clocked at 1.5Ghz and using Rogue graphic core.Reply

That was a wild guess. Thinking back, there is no way Apple will take chances on both CPU and GPU in a chip that are gonna be this high volume.Therefore, I think it is most likely Cortex A15 with tweaked double clock rate(500Mhz) on SGX543MP2 GPU. Reply

I am pretty sure about the Cortex A15 part, since a few of my ex-coworkers join their SOC validation team a year ago and they were rushing to get silicon working late last year. The Rogue based assumption is the wild guess and tipoo rightfully pointed out that it is very unlikely if the performance only increases two-fold. Given that there are quite a few SGX543/544 based GPU scale to over 532Mhz on the TSMC 28nm process, I think it is quite safe to assume that Apple if needed can get good enough yield to have 500Mhz on their new SOC.Reply

Quad, Dual, etc...Heck 100 core...Means nothing (just like the chip name), it's about the experience the device gives and how long you get that experience (battery power). The one with both being the best wins. Unfortunately both are kind of all over the place with no clear winner yet (will there ever be?...LOL). I'd prefer to see apple's ipad battery life on my tegra based tablet (wayne?). I really wouldn't mind them slipping in a thicker battery to get it. I don't require paper thin devices screwing me out of battery life to get thin.

If Apple starts spending money on games they'll win my money early next year or xmas 2013. I'm still waiting on a good (affordable) 10in. Ipad isn't what I'd call affordable (exact opposite - but surface/nexus 10in, kindle hd should bring apple back to reality soon). Nobody can really complain about the experience on any of the latest devices. They may continue to get better (surely), but it won't be leaps and bounds above any other no matter the brand/chip. We're nearing console like performance. Until the "killer app" comes along what do we need more power for over say next xmas (2013) devices? You go to your PC for real power. These are just fart around devices we carry. You don't edit photos etc for 8hrs at work on an ipad/iphone etc. If an employee tries to do that I'll tell them get back on your PC/Mac and get some real work done or you're fired :)Reply

Unless Samsung gave Apple their Exynos 5 Dual CPU, which would be pretty shocking, I have a really hard time seeing how this is based on Cortex A15. I still think it's quad core A9, which would also deserve a new A6 name, since A5X was dual core. What would they have named it otherwise? A5X2? Sounds a little silly.Reply

well, given the diesize area shrink by 22%, it has to be a different core configuration. Coupling with the fact that higher clock speed will exponentially increase the dynamic switching energy, it is very clear that the A6 has to be a Cortex A15 based design in order to reach the 2x performance claim.Reply

But Cortex-A15s take up more space than Cortex-A9s - I don't know how much, but with all of the changes it has to be substantial. Would not be that surprised if it takes up twice as much space sans L2 cache.Reply

Why do they need Exynos? Why can't Apple can get the core from ARM, add on their various other blocks, and just submit the whole thing to a fab?

People seem to believe Apple can't have become a "real" fabless SOC house; but we know they have bought a bunch of companies in this space; we know it is something they have long wanted to do; we know they have been leading up to this for the past five years, designing and customizing more and more of what goes into their SOCs.Reply

While it is true you could still have 2x CPU performance from a Quad Core A9, but anand commented on the performance increase example aren't multi threaded in nature, which means it has to be either double the frequency or A15 with slightly higher frequency then current A5 SoC. Reply

It wouldn't be the first time speculations were wrong about the iPhone. Everybody assumed the 4S had 1GB RAM, since every other iteration doubled the RAM. It turned out it had only 512MB. Also, everybody assumed that the iPhone 4 had a 1GHz processor like the iPad, while it was really only about 800 MHz.Apple only said that the CPU was twice as fast. So it could be a dual A9 clocked at 1.6GHz, a dual A15 at unknown frequency (probably arround 1.2 GHz), or a quad A9 clocked as low as 800 MHz. We will see.Reply

I think it's worth looking at the tasks they showed as sped up. They're all IO related. I suspect PART of what is going on here is flash that is 2x as fast. (And, last time I checked, Apple's current flash is about 2x as fast as the flash used in competitor high-end phones.) So that's part of it, and that's the kind of thing you can use to show 2x speedups even if your per-thread performance isn't 2x.

But they do specifically say "2x faster" CPU, whatever that means...An alternative possibility to A15 which I raise simply for completeness is that they may have dusted off their old macro-scalar patent and applied that to the A9. My interpretation of macro-scalar was that it was a form of ISA-visible hyper threading, and you could argue that well-done plus say a 50% clock boost gets you to 2x speedup (at least for certain types of well-parallelized code) in the available area.

Against that argument, we have the problem that SMT works best as part of the full superscalar OoO setup; trying to graft it on to the Pentium-style paired dispatch of the A9 is going to give some boost (mispredicted branches, cache misses) but not that much. On the third hand, you have to start somewhere, and maybe Apple fits it into the A6 with an A9 core as a trial run for when they REALLY care about using it, in the A15, when they can give 4 virtual cores in 2 core area and power?Reply

To reach the 2x speed increase, the frequency would have to go substantially higher than it currently is, which would probably cause higher power consumption, or about the same at best , even when considering die shrink due to smaller manufacturing process. It doesn't add up.Reply

It's not like it would be the first time Apple overhyped something. Remember when they were saying A5's graphics was 9x times bigger than Tegra 2. Sure, that was true in some very specific and light tests, but overall it was only like 2x better or something.

The "2x increase in performance" claim could come from being a quad core, too. That's how Nvidia markets its Tegra 3, too, pretty much. Don't read too much into it.Reply

They said it was 9x faster than A4 (SGX535) which was a fairly valid assessment. They didn't say anything about Tegra 2.

The 2x claims are backed up by at least some software figures so I don't think they're just playing fake marketing numbers on this one. That doesn't rule out quad core though, I could easily see both quad core and higher clocks.Reply

Brain and Anand, what do we know about A6 specs?--can we confirm that they are all fabricated at 28 nm by Samsung?--I think we can confirm that there are two A-15 Cortex cores?--Is there a lower performance low power companion core that performs functions while the two A-15 cores are in sleep mode? [Similar to the two M-4 Cortex cores in the OMAP 5]--What do we know about graphics (are the rumors of rogue correct)?--single precision gigaflops?--triangles per second?--max wattage TDP?--idle power wattage?--maximum megapixel frontside and backside camera supported by SoC?--LTE baseband wattage TDP?--wi-fi wattage TDP? (Brian, woo-hoo, real wi-fi at last!!!)--other SoC performance metrics?

Apple has matched TXN as one of the first two venders to bring A-15 Cortex to market. However, Apple is the first to introduce A-15 in huge volume. More than 30 million before this year is out (maybe more than 40 million). Many millions this month. Amazing.Reply

That's not how you do it. No one says "1x faster". That expression just doesn't exist - in any language. It's "2x faster".

I think you're confusing it with saying "the old chip has HALF its performance, therefore the new one is 100% faster, or 2x faster". I don't really know what you meant, but what you're saying makes no sense.Reply

I can walk into any engineering course at my alma mater or my local high school and talk about things being "two times faster" or "three times faster" and every one would be exactly on the same page. Reply

Iphone 4S drove its 2 X A9 core at 800mhz AFAIK, and it won't be too hard to drive TWO A9 CORES at 1.5Ghz (so 2x performance gain) without spending too much power. GS3 and GN2 already uses FOUR a9 cores at 1.4~1.6Ghz with decent battery life, so I think this is better conjecture than world-first A15 cores.

And if so, the naming is more likely due to the integrated LTE radio, not a15 cores.Reply

If there's one thing we know for sure about the A6, it's that we won't know what an A6 actually is until someone does surgery an iPhone 5 to either cut open or X-ray the SOC. And Apple isn't telling. (OK, was that two things? <g>)

Apple hasn't shown any past inclination to be the first with something especially when it comes to the processor in the iPhone. There are plenty of other simpler ways that they could claim twice the performance of their previous cpu.

1) A customized tweaked version of the A9 core similar to what Qualcomm has done with the Krait cores in the S4's.

2) Go Quad core over Dual core. Plenty of Quad core A9 implementations and it is not too unreasonable to claim a phone with twice the cores is twice as fast especially if they have worked on how well iOS 6 handles multithreading.

3) Crank up the MHz. As others have posted the iPhone 4s was running at 800mhz. A 1.6 ghz A9 dual core processor is certainly possible.

4) You could even combine 1 and 3 to have a tweaked design that was faster per clock and ran at a higher clock speed to get the 2x performance. Off hand this would be my guess. 50% improvement from tweaked design, 50% from clocking it up to 1.2 ghz.Reply

I doubted at first, but I think Anand's right. Besides, he's on twitter right now hinting he knows more than he can tell, but what he knows confirms we're looking at Cortex A15s.

If Apple used A9s and 543 graphics, then they could have chosen to pursue 2-3 of the 4 accomplishments they claimed today: 2x compute, 2x graphics, 22% die shrink, and maintained to slightly improved battery life. With A9s and 543 graphics, even at 32nm, it would be impossible to achieve all four of those things together.

With the GS3, Samsung achieved 3 of those things (roughly speaking, 2x compute, 2x graphics, and maintained power efficiency) over the GS2, but does anyone know the die size of the Quad Exynos vs the Dual? I doubt the Quad is 22% smaller.

Thanks Anand and Brian for the coverage, and I've enjoyed the podcasts, keep up the stellar work.Reply

If it was quad core it would have been a marketing bullet. Apple does not like to focus on specifics but they would not hide the dominant marketing phrase in Europe for high end phones.

So, it's dual.

It is thus a much higher clocked, die shrunk, tweaked version of the A5 (so Arm A9) or its the A15. Given we know Samsung has started to mass produce dual A15's it's a bit hard for me to believe Apple would go another year on A9. Maybe the timing was perfect for them to be first?

543MP4 would give 2x performance, but would not allow, even with 32nm, for a 22% overall die shrink. So a higher clocked 543MP2 would maybe work. My money is on Rogue, but maybe tackling Rogue and Cortex A15s at the same time would be too much, and we'll see Rogue with the next iPad.Reply

Even with only ~800MHz dual A9s the 4S was pretty competitive with much faster phones in benchmarks, only phones with huge advantages (Krait, Tegra 3 to an extent) pulled forward. If it's A15 with a similar clock rate, that's still good progress, and the clock rate saves battery life. Reply

Sunspoder doesn't have to be a measurement of the overall speed of the browser. All you have to do is swipe or double tap to zoom on most of them to see how choppy most of them perform compared to the iPhone. But that's more of a software than hardware comparison.Reply

I think if it was quad core Apple would have said so. They only talk about tech specs when their numbers are bigger (like screen resolution). It clearly works - if you look in Google news today its surprising how many outlets have as their headline iPhone 5 - 2X performance with no technical specs to support it.. Apple is the best marketing company in the world. Reply

"This USB 2.0 cable connects your iPhone or iPod with Lightning connector to your computer's USB port for syncing and charging or to the Apple USB Power Adapter for convenient charging from a wall outlet"

The A15 is simply a CPU core and it has nothing to do with what is hanging on the AXI bus. USB3 IP is quite common and if Apple desired can easily license IP from multiple vendors (Synopsis and etc). I think it is more of that the extra serdes power consumption is not justified in this case for the speed increment. Reply

Especially when Samsung Exynos 5 *HAS* USB3 on the host side....I just don't think Anand is right here -- either that or he knows for sure and can't tell his source (which sucks for us), but I just don't think he's right.Reply

I have to agree. Half of the people reading not only this post, but all the other posts that others made and said the same thing because "Anandtech said it" (Proof: http://www.extremetech.com/mobile/136085-whats-ins... will think it has A15 CPU's even AFTER Anandtech and everyone else finds out it's actually still something based on A9, if they are indeed wrong on their assumption.

A lot of people will miss the info update, and will be buying the iPhone thinking it has A15's.Reply

From your comments in this thread it sounds more to me like you actively want it to be untrue because it will clearly be better than what's shipping in current Android phones, and Android fans DO NOT like is to lose in spec wars and checklist bulletpoint battles. (Even though, um, rational people agree the only thing that matters is the end result.)Reply

If Apple still uses Samsung as a foundry, the process is most likely 32nm HKMG (down from 45nm in 4S). The A5X (new iPad) with two A9's and an SGX534MP4 on 45nm was a staggering 165mm2 but on 32nm it would be roughly half that. Replacing the A9 cores with A15 cores would increase the die size to something like 100mm2, which fits the bill since the A5 comes in at 122.2mm2. The comparisons in the presentation are between the A5 (4S) and A6 (5), not between A5X (new iPad) and A6. Should the process be 28nm it would imply they have gone to TSMC (or less likely GloFo). (Putting on my tin foil hat now.) All of a sudden we have an explanation why it's so hard to come by an NVIDIA card... (hat off) Then again, does it really matter what secret sauce they have added as long as they meet their claim of 'twice the speed'?Reply

How's it an outdated design? Changing cosmetics for the sake of saying it looks different is vain. I thought the stereotype was that Apple fans were too superficial. Guess it applies to Android fans, too.

Not having a removable battery or microSD slot has served Apple just dandily for five years, and normal buyers don't balk at those as limitations. FM radio? Really? What era do we live in again?

And some of us enjoy using our smartphones with one hand (this is coming from someone who has a Galaxy Nexus, even).Reply